CCPR/C/113/D/2218/2012 allegations that he has suffered inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the prison officials, in contravention of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author reiterated his claims that his repeated prosecution, conviction and imprisonment violated his rights under articles 7, 14 (7) and article 18 (1) of the Covenant. He requests the Committee to direct the State party (a) to acquit him of the charges under article 219 (1) of the Criminal Code and to expunge his criminal record; (b) to provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for the non-pecuniary damages suffered; and (c) to provide him with appropriate monetary compensation for the legal expenses he has incurred before the Committee. 5.3 On 22 October 2014, the author added that he was released on 6 March 2014, after serving his prison term. He reiterates the facts of his case and adds that, on 3 April 2012, he was transferred to the LBK-12 colony in the city of Seydi. Upon arrival, he was placed in the colony’s isolation block for 10 days. There, the Head of the Operations Unit, Mr. S., organized his ill-treatment and humiliation. The author was subjected to beatings with clubs on the soles of his feet “and not just once”, “goose stepping”, doing push-ups, running, “screaming certain words” and sitting on the floor with stretched-out legs. As to the conditions in the isolation block, he notes that it lacked basic hygiene, that there were around 40 inmates in one cell, and that a metal barrel, emptied once a day, served as a toilet in the cell. During the day, inmates had to sit on the concrete cell floor and at night-time they were given dirty blankets which were insufficient for all prisoners. He also notes that, after his release, he was ordered to report to the police once a week over a certain period of time. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note that the author has exhausted all effective available remedies. It also notes that the State party has not invoked article 5 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol to challenge the admissibility of the communication. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author’s claims raising issues under articles 7, 10, 14 (7) and article 18 (1) of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that, upon arrival at the LBK-12 prison on 3 April 2012, he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It notes that the author has provided a detailed description of the manner in which he was ill-treated while in isolation, as well as the identity of the 5